Between Intangible Cultural Heritage and Folklore

During the last half a century, the concepts of folklore and heritage went respectively through parallel but inverted courses. I think there are serious problems in the mating of “Folklore” with “Intangible Cultural Heritage” and the differences between them are unrelated to age or generation gaps but are inherent conceptual incongruities between the two ideas. Shortly after Dorson declared folklore as “one of the remarkable stories of the present academic scene” (1970), folklore’s wheel of fortune began to turn backward academically while its star rose on UNESCO horizons, emerging in tandem with the tangible and intangible heritage that has solidified as “Intangible Cultural Heritage” (ICH). Toward the end of the twentieth century, the term’s use took off, appearing in handbooks, anthologies, monographic essays, and numerous articles. “Intangible Cultural Heritage,” seemed the right resolution for the folklore crisis, not only in the United States and Germany but in all the nations that UNESCO unites, and folklorists flocked to it like a moth to


Introduction
In 1972, my teacher, Professor Richard M. Dorson (1916Dorson ( -1981, published a new edited volume, Folklore and Folklife: An Introduction, which included essays by leading American folklore scholars. As an "Introduction" (pp. 1-50), Dorson recycled his article "Current Folklore Theories" (Dorson, 1963), which he had published nine years earlier. At that time, he identified five major dominant theories of folklore studies in the mid-twentieth century: "Comparative Folklore Theories" (Dorson, 1963, pp. 93-96), "National Folklore Theories" (pp. 96-101), "Anthropological Theory" (pp. 101-105), "Psychoanalytical Folklore Theory" (pp. 105-109), and "Structural Folklore Theory" (pp. 109-110). But nine years later he noticed a sixth theory percolating in American folklore studies and he added to his earlier essay a new brief chapter on a "contextual" theory (Dorson, 1972, pp. 45-47). He pointed out that " [w]hile as yet they do not form a cohesive school, they do share… a leaning toward the social sciences, particularly anthropology, linguistics, and the cultural aspects of psychology and sociology; a strong preoccupation with the environment in which the folklore text is embedded; and an emphasis on theory. They object strenuously to the text being extrapolated from its context in language, behavior, communication, expression, and performance, overlapping terms they continually employ. These ideas unite such young Turks among the folklorists as Roger Abrahams , Dan Ben-Amos, Alan Dundes [1934Dundes [ -2005, Robert Georges [1933Georges [ -2022, and Kenneth Goldstein [1927Goldstein [ -1995." I was motivated to select my topic by a phrase I read in a manuscript I anonymously reviewed for one of our journals. The eloquent and thoughtful scholar who pondered the question of the history of tradition, concluded the manuscript with the provocative statement: "This insight may serve to prepare us for the next turn of the screw: The contemporary transformation of tradition into cultural heritage [my italics] adding new dimensions to the old story." This indeed is a very tempting idea. During the last half a century the two concepts of folklore and heritage went respectively through parallel but inverted courses, which, at the dawn of the twenty-first century, converged in the freshly minted concept of "Intangible Cultural Heritage"(ICH). Could this be a marriage made in heaven? Marriages may be made in heaven, but they take place on earth, and we can legitimately wonder, "how on earth did the two of them get together? What made them attractive to each other to begin with, and how could they turn a few dates into a lifelong marriage?" By taking a glance into their biography, or rather history, switching back from the metaphoric heaven and earth into the scholarly reality, it is legitimate to ask how does an over hundred and fifty-year-old concept, who some say is much older (Mazo, 1996), get together with a fresh late 20th-century idea that emerged out of the political crucible of the United Nations? Odd as it may seem, a glance into the history of folklore, and the academic straight jacket in which it found itself at the end of the twentieth century, may offer some explanation for the attraction between this couple of terms and shed light on the pursuit of Intangible Cultural Heritage instead of folklore, by thoughtful folklorists (Foster and Gilman, eds. 2015).
In a reflective moment, it does not escape me that my response to the concept of "Intangible Cultural Heritage" might be a symptom of a generation gap. , Gershon Legman (1917 a folklorist whom I admire, published anonymously (J.H. B., 1977) 2 a satirical essay ridiculing the new wave in folklore scholarship known colloquially as "The New Perspectives," after the title of a volume that Paredes and Bauman edited (Paredes and Bauman, 1972). "Am I now in his place, upset by a new turn in folklore studies that younger folklorists are introducing?" Certainly, this is not a dismissible idea. Science and scholarship progress not by accumulation of theories, but rather by their dismissal as Thomas Kuhn convincingly revolutionized the perception of progress in knowledge (Barnes, 1982;Fuller, 2000;Gutting, ed., 1980;Kuhn, 1962Kuhn, , 2000Lakatos and Musgrave, eds., 1970). Yet, I think there are serious problems in the mating of "Folklore" with "Intangible Cultural Heritage" and the differences between them are unrelated to age or generation gaps but are inherent conceptual incongruities between the two ideas. A brief overview of their respective histories might expose them and forestall a doomed mating.
Outside folklore scholarship, Mikhail Bakhtin (1895Bakhtin ( -1975 observed that "the narrow concept of popular character and of folklore was born in the pre-Romantic period and was basically completed by von Herder and the Romantics" (Bakhtin, 1968, p. 4). His focus was on folk laughter, the language of the marketplace, and festive rituals, not upon the entire range of folklore. Yet, conceptually he could have extended his argument to all the genres of oral literature, contending that a cultural category must exist before it is named. While his insight was valid, he had downplayed the contribution of Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744Herder ( -1803 and the Romantics to the idea of the "folk" and the conception of folklore itself. Herder did not simply complete the concept, but changed its value, and thereby re-conceptualized the folk and its lore, and the relation between country and court. In the history of civilization, literacy and urbanity became wedges that split apart cultures and societies that shared languages, religions, and social structures. Literacy infused a sense of superiority into its possessors. Already in the early and late antiquity, poets and thoughtful people argued against such superciliousness of the learned and the urbane. Hesiod in the 8 th century BCE wrote that "Gossip never dies, breathing in so many mouths. She is not unlike a god" (Works and Days,. 3 In the 5 th century BCE Aeschylus (456-425) wrote "The people murmur, and their voice is great in strength" (Grene and Lattimore, 1959, pp. 1:63, Agamemnon 938), and in the first century BCE in Rome, Seneca the Elder (55 BCE-39 CE) wrote "crede mihi, sacra populi lingua est" (…believe me, the people's tongue is divine) (Seneca, 1974, pp. 38-39; Controversiae 1.1.10). The rarity of such pronouncements, and their argumentative rhetoric underscored them as lone voices against a prevailing opinion that persisted in literate societies. The learned class in Europe did not abate their attitude toward the illiterate multitude for several centuries. In medieval texts the denigration of the people is evident by ignoring their language by the literate class. An explicit denouncement of the multitude is apparent in an exchange about a proverb that states the opposite. The first time the proverb Vox Populi Vox Dei (the voice of the people [is] the voice of God) appears in writing is in a letter written by Alcuin of York (735-804) 4 , a friend and an adviser of Charlemagne and a teacher at the Carolingian court, sent to Charlemagne (742-814 C.E (Boas, 1969, pp. 8-13). While the proverb, quoted as a phrase that people "are accustomed to say" endorsed their voice, Alcuin himself argued against its validity, stating that "[t]he people in accordance with divine law are to be led, not followed. And when witnesses are needed, men of position are to be preferred. Nor are those to be listened to who are accustomed to say, "The voice of the people is the voice of God. For the clamor of the crowd [vulgi] is very close to madness" (Boas, 1969, p. 9, see also, Boas, 1973Gallacher, 1945).
About half a millennium would have to pass before writers and authors would open the gates of literacy to vernacular languages, but once they did, there was no way nor need to close them. With the invention of print in the fifteenth century, oral poetry and oral literature found a cheap entry ticket into the markets of letters, and the tales, ballads, and proverbs of the rural folk had their impact on the minds of the urban intellectuals (Fox, 2000;Graff, 1981;Mundal and Wellendorf, 2008;Stewart, 1991;Stock, 1983;Watt, 1991). Other historical trends intertwined with the discovery of the rural backyards of European cities. In the Renaissance authors and poets, such as Dante Alighieri (1265-1321), Giovanni Boccaccio (1313-1375), Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400), Angelo Ambrogini Poliziano (1454-1494), and William Shakespeare (1564-1616, to name just a few, discovered vernacular languages and literatures; 5 explorers discovered the peoples without written histories (Ben-Amos, 1984;Hodgen, 1964;Wolf, 1982) whom Montaigne (1533Montaigne ( -1592 welcomed in his essay "Of Cannibals" (written 1578-1580, see Montaigne, 1965, pp. 150-159, Célestin, 1996, and collectors discovered antiquities and curiosities in Europe and elsewhere (Findlen, 1996;Pomian, 1987;Stagl, 1995) as well as the medieval manuscripts of epics and sagas (Chinca and Young, eds. 2005;Goody, 1987;Goody and Watts, 1963;Green, 1994). These new discoveries broke down the walls of literacy within which European urban intellectuals fortified themselves. They encountered their counterculture but instead of denigrating, they smothered it with love and admiration. The supercilious attitude toward the non-literary rural folk transformed into a reconfiguration of their low social status into the literal roots and the basis upon which a national society had built its structure. Neither German, Finnish, Russian, Irish nor English peasants considered themselves representing the "spirit", or better, to use Herder's metaphor, the soul, of their respective nations, in their language, metaphors, songs and tales, but the urban and literate societies of their respective countries did.

Folklore as a science
William Thoms himself coined the term "folklore" but he did not conceive of it as a science. For him it was a journalistic title for a magazine column which he tended for four years, after which it petered out because of the lack of contributors (Roper, 2007, pp. 211, note 1). The first to propose folklore as a subject for a systematic scientific inquiry was Wilhelm Heinrich Riehl (1823-1897) who considered "Volkskunde als Wissenschaft" in a lecture he delivered at the University of Münich in 1858 (Moser, 1978;Stein, 2001, p. 492) and published a year later (Riehl, 1859). 6 Five years later Johann Georg von Hahn (1811-1869) 7 reached the conclusion that "The study of folktales appears to have reached the stage in which a scientific view of its material, and the development of a precise terminology, have become essential preconditions of any continued progress" (1864, p. 40).
In England, folklorists considered their subject as appropriate to, and requiring of, scientific inquiry only in the last two decades of the 19 th century. While Hartland published The Science of Fairy Tales in 1891, Gomme preceded him with an article "The Science of Folklore" that appeared in The Folk-Lore Journal in 1885, followed by others (Burne, 1885;Burne et. al., 1885;Glennie, 1889;Temple, 1886), and more than twenty years later published his famous Folklore as an Historical Science (1908), the significance of which was the subject of a President of the Folklore Society fifty years later (Burstein, 1957).
In England folklore scholarship developed primarily outside the academic institutions (Ashman, et. al., 1986:1 Briggs, 1978Dorson, 1961;Sanderson and Evans,1970;Widdowson, 2010;Wingfield and Gosden, 2012). 8 Initially American scholars and folklorists followed the British model. The American Folklore Society was founded a decade after its British sister, in 1888. While its founder and the first editor of the Journal of American Folklore, William Wells Newell (1839-1907, was not on the faculty of any university (Abrahams, 1988;Bell, 1973), he recruited to the leadership of The American Folklore Society some of his generation's top scholars and public intellectuals in the humanities and the social sciences (Camp, 1989, p. 10). Among them were the anthropologist Franz Boas (1858Boas ( -1942, the ballad scholar Francis James Child (1825-1896) and a major American author like Mark Twain , whose literary work touched upon folklore (Bell, 1955;Cuff, 1952;Franz, 1956;Strong, 1967;Winkelman, 1965;West, 1930). These and other scholars pursued folklore research and taught folklore courses. Francis Child's leading student at Harvard University, George Layman Kittredge , was lured from his studies of Shakespeare and the Middle Ages into folklore studies in America (Abrahams, 2000;Bauman, 2008;Birdsall, 1973;Hyder, 1962;Rudy, 1999Rudy, , 2004, so much so that European scholars would send him inquiries about folktales among the Native Americans (Thompson, 1996, pp. 57-58). Yet the American universities and colleges kept the discipline of folklore in the waiting room for slightly over sixty years.
The American Folklore Society, rather than the universities, was the authority over research in folklore scholarship. For example, in the thirties, when the government initiated a massive folklore collecting project in many states, under the New Deal program (Grieve, 2009;Hirsch, 2003;Mangione, 1972;Penkower, 1977.), it was the American Folklore Society, to which government officials turned for approval (Ben-Amos, 2014;Mangione, 1972, p. 276;Weltfish, 1938, p. 103), rather than the universities.
The turning point came about at the conclusion of the Second World War. In 1945, The American Council of Learned Societies accepted the American Folklore Society into its ranks (Anon, 1945), and in 1950 the first doctoral program in folklore was established at Indiana University (Thompson, 1996, p. 152). This major event was accompanied by an international conference "Folklore in Midcentury" (Thompson, 1953) and consequently, even before the internet, the foundation of the folklore program at Indiana University reverberated around the globe. In 1957, Richard M. Dorson took the helm of the program and transformed it into a world-wide center for folklore scholarship with students flocking to Bloomington Indiana, literally from around the globe. Dorson and his faculty members conceived and developed an international community of folklore scholars. They organized conferences in Yugoslavia (Dorson, 1966) and in England (Dorson, 1970). The first "Conference on African Folklore" was held in Bloomington on the campus of Indiana University on July 16-18, 197016-18, (Dorson, ed. 1972, and in 1973 when the 9 th World Congress of Anthropology was held in Chicago, a pre-Congress conference on the topic "Folklore in the Modern World" took place in Bloomington on folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos the campus of Indiana University on August 28-30, 1973 (Dorson, 1978;Dundes, 1977;Jason and Segal, 1977). Twenty years after the founding of the folklore department, Dorson could declare with pride that "[t]he vigorous development of folklore as a discipline in American universities is one of the remarkable stories of the present academic scene" (Dorson, 1970).
But then the wheel of fortune turned backwards. By the nineties of the previous century, folklorists in the United States held not one but two conferences in which they lamented the depressive state of folklore studies in American universities and colleges. First was the Western Folklore, in which a symposium on "Taking Stock: Current Problems and Future Prospects in American Folklore Studies" appeared in 1991. In his concluding statement, Elliott Oring wrote: "Almost everyone seems to agree that something is wrong [original emphasis] with folklore and that the future of folklore studies in the United States depends upon something being fixed or otherwise improved" (Oring, 1991, p. 75). Five years later, the Journal of Folklore Research dedicated a special issue to "Folklore in the Academy: The Relevance of Folklore to Language and Literature Departments"(1996), in which folklore's prospects were no brighter. To top it all, in celebrating the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the coinage of "folk-lore", Ilana Harlow convened a panel at the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Folklore Society in Pittsburg Pennsylvania, on the subject "What's in a Name", several folklorists, including Jane Beck, the President of the American Folklore Society that year, proposed to do away with the name "folklore" because the "name no longer communicates what we do or who we are" (Beck, 1997, p. 134; see also Ben-Amos, 1998;Bendix, 1998;Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1998;Motz, 1998;Oring, 1998;Schrempp, 1998). John Dorfman took the suggestion literally and a year later published an article in which he declared the death of folklore as an academic discipline (Dorfman, 1997). Crossing the millennium and entering the twenty-first century, the situation of folklore in the academy worsened. No wonder that Alan Dundes fell into an Ecclesiastic depression crying "[U]tter futility. utter futility! All is futile!" (Ecclesiastes 1:2), or in his own words: "[t]he state of folkloristics at the beginning of the twenty-first century is depressingly worrisome" (Dundes, 2005, p. 385;Oring, 2019, pp. 137-138). 9

Folklore and volkskunde
While the folklore depression was not universal, it inflicted some key scholarly communities, each with its own symptoms. In the United States, the decline of folklore manifested itself particularly in the academic space with repercussions in scholarship, but in Germany, for example, it had deeper roots in politics and national ideology, reaching far back into the nascent stages of folklore, or rather Volkskunde. The semantic components of the term Volkskunde, which Åke Hultkrantz considered to be "the model for the English term folklore created by Thoms in 1846" (Hultkrantz, 1960, p. 243) held a scholarly promise, yet forecasted the destruction of folklore as an academic discipline in Germany. Volkskunde appeared in print, innocently enough, as early as 1782 in the popular journal "Der Reisende" (The Traveler), in an article that was likely written by its editor Friedrich Ekkard (1744-1819) (Kutter, 1978;Stagl, 1998, p. 524;Tokofsky, 1996, p. 207;Weber-Kellermann, et. al. 2003, p. 9-19). Initially the Czech scholar Josef Mader (1754-1815) adopted it as a term for statistical ethnography in the European countryside (Guilláin, 2000, p. 39;Ward, 1981, p. 2, p. 344;Weber-Kellerman, et al 2003, p. 9). But the Philosophical-Romantic foundations of the concept were laid already in Herder's anthologies of international folksongs (Herder, 1778(Herder, -1779 although he did not use the term Volkskunde. Herder couched national romanticism with humanism. Influenced by Vico (Berlin, 1976) he dressed Renaissance and Baroque pastoralism with nationalism that manifested itself in the formation of the unique attributes of each nation.
In Herder's term, all "folk literature" must be "literature of the people." It must be volksmässig. Herder originated the term Volkslitteratur or Volkspoesie in its modern meaning. He alternated the terms frequently with Litteratur or Poesie des Volks, emphasizing now the originative, now the appropriative, relation. It is in this test of Volksmässigkeit, agreement with folk character, that difficulties enter, which, though they complicate some of the detailed applications of the term Volk, are yet readily analyzed and interpreted as consistent aspects and functions of collective personality.
The term Volk, "folk," always has been subject to much vagueness and contradictoriness of usage. Most of this confusion can be removed by the observation that the difficulty is not so much one of definition as one of valuation. That is, Volk is to almost everyone a generalization of the less sophisticated part of an ethnic or political group who work for their living and are distinguished by the qualities of mind and character associated with a more or less simple, wholesome, laborious, responsible, sober, and unstrained mode of life. But as to the valuation of this collective type, two sharply antagonistic points of view have alternatively dominated throughout history. It was especially the age of Pope and Dryden, of Louis XIV and Boileau, and following Boileau's example that of Opitz and Gottsched in Germany, which regarded the folk and its creative, especially its literary, products, with contempt and derision, as lacking in refinement, learning, mastery of diction, and subtleness and elevation of thought. This aristocratic attitude toward folk literature is characteristic of the Rationalistic movement.
The Romantic movement of the eighteenth century, on the other hand, especially since its culmination in Rousseau's doctrine of the natural man as the embodiment of perfect spontaneity proceeding directly from the hand of the Creator, tended to idealize the people as the highest embodiment of man, as the union of the true children of God. In the clash of these two valuations appeared most of the characteristics of the two movements, the Rationalistic and the Romantic. Herder was offended by the one-sidedness of the one as much as of the other. He was bitterly opposed to the aristocratic sterility of Rationalism, but he was no less intolerant of the subjective narrowness of Romanticism. He finished by combining what was best in both into his profound and rich synthesis, which formed the foundations of what for several generations was, and may again become, the motive of a new era of humanity (Schultz, 1921, pp. 117-118).
During the second half of the 20 th century, folklore studies in Germany were haunted by the ghost of the Third Reich and German folklore scholars did their utmost to free themselves from its claws, only to find out how strong its grasp was (Dow and Lixfeld, 1986Gerndt, 1987;Hermand, 1992;Jacobeit et al., 1994;Lixfeld, 1991Lixfeld, , 1994Naithani, 2014;Remy, 2002). No wonder that those of them who sought to reinstitute folklore studies in German universities on solid academic foundations could not rid themselves of the term Volkskunde fast enough (Bendix, 1998, p. 240;Dow and Lixfeld, 1986Hermand, 1992;Lixfeld, 1991;.

"A Rose by Any Other Name"
There is no comparison between the German and the American predicaments of folklore scholarship, but in both cases, in a moment of crisis, folklorists turned to magical solutions they encountered in their studies, looking for an identity change by changing their name (Motif, N131.4. Luck changing after change of name). In the United States, leading folklore scholars bemoaned the disciplinary name, but offered no viable alternative. Regina Bendix, who was then a University of Pennsylvania faculty member, reported largely about the German experience yet, for America only, concluded humorously with the suggestion that "William Thoms in 1996 would surely suggested that we seek an appropriate word to replace his good Saxon compound, and would have publicized his suggestion in today's equivalent of the Athenaeum---the Internet" (Bendix, 1998, p. 242.) Jane Beck considered the discipline's name its major impediment and because of its public and academic marginalization, urging folklorists to develop better political and public relation skills, but offered no new name to emboss on its flag (Beck, 1997). And Barbara Kishenblatt-Gimblett suggested that "by fighting to keep the name, we'll lose our life as a field of study" (1998, p. 252). They all realized that names are not free-floating air-filled balloons, nor are they just shingles that hang above an office or a store door. Rather they are meaningful paradigms of knowledge, culture, and ideas with histories, experiences, and with their respective symbolic identities (Ben-Amos, 1998;Boersema, 2002;Deely, 1978;Korff, 1996;Lotman and Uspensky, 1978;Margolis, 1968;Oring, 1998;Stocking, 1971) In Germany Hermann Bausinger, determined to re-establish folklore studies on solid sociological-anthropological foundations, renamed folklore studies at the University of Tübingen to be Empirische Kulturwissenschaft. In the last two decades of the 20 th century, 21 institutes and departments in German university adopted new names, cleansing themselves from any remnants of Fascist and Nazi ideology (Bendix, 1998, p. 240;Korff, 1996). These names veered folklore toward the social sciences, particularly ethnography and sociology, and although they did not reverse it to the statistical ethnography of Josef Mader in the 18 th century, they syphoned off the geist out of the volksgeist.

Intangible cultural heritage
Outside Germany, "Heritage" emerged as the keyword that the American folklorists were clamoring for to save their discipline and to restore dignity to their field. Philologically the term has Latin, Old French, and Old English roots, semantically it connotes both hereditary of property and tradition, an essential folkloristic concept. What name and concept could have been better? Raymond Williams (1921Williams ( -1988 had not yet included it in his list of keywords in public discourse in which "culture," "society," or the folklore relevant, "myth" appeared (Williams, 1976, pp. 76-82, 243-247, 176-178), but shortly after the 1972 UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Heritage began to gain force in public discourse. Toward the conclusion of the twentieth century the use of the term took off and it appeared in handbooks, essays in anthologies, monographic essays, and numerous articles. "Intangible Cultural Heritage," seemed the right resolution for the folklore crisis, not only in the United States and Germany, but in all the nations that UNESCO unites, and folklorists flocked to it like moth to flame.
At first glance, the mutual attraction seemed perfect. What could have been more attractive to folklore, the Cinderella in the academic ball rather than a political partner, emanating folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos good will to all, weak and powerful nations alike, colonial empires and decolonized nationstates, that experienced not only political freedom but cultural liberation after many years of suppressions, and yet had the full support of states and their political leaders? Had politicians, and the cultural experts that they recruited as their advisers, been able to foster "the next turn of the screw: The contemporary transformation of tradition into cultural heritage [my italics] adding new dimensions to the old story"? Or, more precisely, can the concept of "Intangible Cultural Heritage" serve as the new paradigm for folklore as an academic discipline? England, the country in which the term "folklore" was coined, and in which respected thinkers contemplated its scientific potential (Dorson, 1968;Gomme, 1885Gomme, , 1908Hartland, 1891), yet resisted its incorporation into its venerable academic establishment, finally issued a resounding positive answer to this rhetorical question. In its announcement of the opening of an MA program in Folklore Studies, the University of Hertfordshire prominently refers to the UNESCO "Intangible Cultural Heritage": This Masters in Folklore Studies, which will run for the first time in 2019-20, is the only such a program offered in England. It offers students with an Honours degree in a range of related subjects, such as History, English Literature, Anthropology, Archaeology, and Sociology, a thorough grounding in the history of the discipline of Folklore and current work in the field. This distinctive program combines breadth with depth of study through wide-ranging but inter-connected modules with a focus on legend, ritual, belief, and tradition in British society. Students will also explore Folklore in comparative international contexts and consider its global importance as an aspect of UNESCO's definition of Intangible Cultural Heritage. 10 My own university appeared to make the shift from folklore to "cultural heritage" in the United States even earlier. After terminating, at the turn of the millennium, a distinguished Department of Folklore and Folklife that was founded in 1962 and educated more than 100 folklore scholars (Hufford, 2020;Samuelson, 1983), the University of Pennsylvania founded in 2008 the Cultural Heritage Center, offering a "Cultural Heritage Management Certificate" upon the completion of a four-course program. Will other universities follow? While academic administrations are slow to act, the shift from "folklore" to "Intangible Cultural Heritage" has begun in three domains: politics, popular culture, and in the intersection between research and commerce.

Folklore and heritage in UNESCO halls
Ironically, shortly after Dorson declared folklore as "one of the remarkable stories of the present academic scene" (Dorson, 1970), its wheel of fortune began to turn backward academically while its star rose on UNESCO horizons, emerging in tandem with tangible and intangible heritage that has solidified as "Intangible Cultural Heritage" (ICH). The history of this synchrony has been explored in several studies (Hafstein, 2004(Hafstein, , 2007(Hafstein, , 2014Smith, 2004Smith, , 2006Smith and Akagawa, 2009). The concept was hued and honed in international diplomatic conferences during the last quarter of the 20 th century, building upon earlier conferences, agreements and conventions (Rodwell, 2012;Sherkin, 2001). folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.)

: 114-Dan Ben-Amos
A leading international scholar such as the Finnish folklorist Lauri Honko (1932Honko ( -2002 welcomed with open arms the "Text of the Recommendation for the Safeguarding of Folklore" (Honko, 1990a(Honko, , 1990b and as editor of the Nordic Institute of Folklore Newsletter published it as a lead article accompanied by photographs (Honko, 1989). This proclamation had a long incubation period (Sherkin, 2001) and ten years later was the subject of an international conference "A Global Assessment of the 1989 Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore. Local Empowerment and International Cooperation" that was held in Washington D.C. (U.S.A.) on 27-30 June 1999 in collaboration with the Smithsonian Institution (Seitel, 2001).
But the harmonious relations between Intangible Cultural Heritage and Folklore were short-lived because their inherent incompatibility could not sustain this union. Four years later, in June 2-14, 2003, a major UNESCO convention gathered in the large conference room in the basement of UNESCO Headquarters at Place de Fontenoy, Paris, to work on the Preliminary Draft Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.

Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore that fourteen years later became the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
In his ethnographic description of the 2003 UNESCO conference Hafstein describes the deletion of the term "folklore" and the insertion of Intangible Cultural Heritage, almost in passing. He writes: The elusive notion of intangibility refers not to the spectral or ethereal (though it includes stories and rituals relating to ghosts and spirits) but suggests a focus on practices and expressions that do not leave extensive material traces, at least not of monumental proportions. Storytelling, craftsmanship, rituals, dramas, and festivals are prime examples of the sort of cultural representations targeted by the new instrument of heritage policy. These used to be called folklore---a term largely abandoned within UNESCO, though not in some other international organizations. In UNESCO parlance, the practices and expressions formerly known as folklore now come under the rubric of the "intangible cultural heritage". (Hafstein, 2004, p. iii) 11 Nic Craith offers some explanation for the abandonment of folklore among UNESCO members: [T]he idea of "folklore" was problematic for some. At a joint UNESCO/ Smithsonian Institute conference in 1999, delegates from Africa, the Pacific and Latin America expressed dissatisfaction with the use of the term "folklore" which, for them, had strong European associations and, from their perspective, was primarily used by anthropologists with reference to cultures in the developing world. Instead, they proposed that terms such as "traditional and popular culture" be considered terminology that was already in use anyway. Delegates from the Fiji Islands strongly associated the notion of "folklore" with colonization. They argued that "culture" is not "folklore" but the sacred norms intertwined with their traditional way of life. This association of the concept folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos of "folklore" with colonialism is interesting because for some nations at least, the development of folklore was in reaction to rather than a consequence of colonization. Folklore was a tool of resistance rather than acquiescence, subversiveness rather than subservience. In view of the negativity towards the term "folklore", the phrase "in-tangible cultural heritage" was subsequently forwarded. (Craith, 2008, p. 56) 12 The objection to the term "folklore" on the part of diplomats and cultural experts from previously colonized countries, demonstrates that in their views the popular (Beck, 1997;Bendix, 1998) and the scholarly conceptions of folklore crossed. Folklore scholars have conduct research in oral societies with utmost respect for the peoples, their cultures and their oral literatures, though indeed, earlier theories generated a denigrating descriptive term like "primitive" (Greenway, 1964), which was associated with long abandoned theories. The radical change in the evaluation of literature in oral cultures is demonstrable in three bibliographies and in an encyclopedia of folklore in Africa (Görög, 1981;Görög-Karady, 1992;Peek and Yankah, 2004;Scheub, 1997). Furthermore, in the political sphere, nationalism and the definition of collective selfhood is bound with folklore (Baycroft and Hopkin, 2012). It is evidently clear that the diplomats dropped "folklore" through no fault of its own.
But the crux of the matter is not terminological. It is conceptual and rhetorical. First, while the UNESCO program recognizes the intangibility of culture, it conceives of culture in tangible terms of safeguarding, preservation, exhibition, tourism, and commodification, sucking the life out of folklore. Secondly, scholarly and political discourses are rhetorically distinct from each other. Scholarly discourse is explorative, whereas political and judicial discourse is conclusive, sealed in agreements, conventions, and laws. The operational guidelines of "Intangible Cultural Heritage" are a construct of political negotiations, bargaining, and, on occasion, even financial contribution, to a national cause (Hafstein, 2004;. Its manifestations are in normative rules that have judicial authority of inclusion and exclusion. In conferences, conventions, and international negotiations delegates to UNESCO have sought to create an international canon of natural and built monuments to be safeguarded and preserved for the humanity of the future. Such an international action is necessary in face of both the constructive and destructive impulses of societies, but its application to intangible cultural heritage and tradition transforms them into monuments, undermining their valuation in their respective societies and cultures, and turns them into targets of an international gaze. UNESCO and other international culturalpolitical agencies cemented the relations between folklore and International Cultural Heritage and from its halls this bond emanated to broader circles. Within public discourse it is possible to distinguish two interpretations of the relations between folklore and heritage that are inversions of each other. There is no textual evidence, and if there is it escaped me, that the two cultural theoreticians who formulated them were aware of the writings of each other. Rather they developed their interpretations independently. The cultural historian David Lowenthal (1923 folklorized "Heritage", considering its practice in literate, urban, and commercial society in terms of the sacred, discerning in it patterns behavior in traditional societies. In contrast, my good friend the folklorist Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett changed folklore into "Heritage" folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos which is made and becomes a cultural construct of commercial economy. She diminished, if not completely denied, the existence of folklore in social reality. Consequently, her folklore theory is based on the proposition that folklore is a "made-up" invention, "a presentation of self in Everyday Life" to modify Erving Goffman's felicitous title (Goffman, 1959). David Lowenthal (1923, a distinguished cultural historian (Gathercole and Lowenthal, eds. 1990;Lowenthal, 1985Lowenthal, , 1998Lowenthal, ,2006Olwig and Lowenthal, eds. 2006.), has barely mentioned the term "Folklore" in his writings (Lowenthal, 1998:178), and includes only cursory remarks about UNESCO and its "Intangible Cultural Heritage" mission in his last book on the subject (Lowenthal, 1998, pp. 7, 20, 230, 245-46), but he analyzed extensively the "Heritage Crusade." Examining this trend in modern society he adopted a folkloristicanthropological approach and insightfully proposed to consider "Heritage" to be a civic-cultural cult. He opened his book The Heritage Crusade (1996) with the following paragraph:

Heritage in public culture
The world rejoices in a newly popular faith: the cult of heritage. To be sure, heritage is as old as humanity. Prehistoric peoples bequeathed goods and goals, legacies benign and malign suffuse Homeric tales, the Old Testament, and Confucian precepts. But only in our time has heritage become a self-conscious creed, whose shrines and icons daily multiply and whose praise suffuses public discourse (Lowenthal, 1998, p. 1).
The ethnic, national, and even global reverence for antiquity dates to antiquity itself (Beaulieu, 1994;Fudge2000;Jonker, 1995, pp. 133-152;Weisberg, 2012, pp. 61-71;Winter, 2000). 13 Societies maintained "sites of memory" to use Pierre Nora's concept, in traditional and modern cultures (Nora, 1978(Nora, , 1984(Nora, , 1989; see also Ben-Amos and Weissberg, eds. 1999, pp. 301-311;Fisch, ed. 2008;Halbwachs, , 1950Halbwachs, , 1971Halbwachs, , 1992. The transformation of cultural memory into a cult of "Heage" implicates it as a civil movement with religious dynamics with its own shrines, monuments, rituals, holy writs, and guardian priests, as well as social functions and spiritual purposes. Cults are not disciplines. They involve veneration not analysis. Although Lowenthal does not offer a systematic analysis of effects of the heritage cult on modern societies, his case studies span the globe from China, through the Near East, Europe, the West Indies, to the United States and Canada. In his conclusion he seeks to respond to those who assail heritage but as an historian his conclusion is as critical: …attachment to heritage depends on feeling and faith, as opposed to history's ascertained truths. Lack of hard evidence seldom distresses the public at large, who are mostly credulous, undemanding, accustomed to heritage mystique, and often laud the distortions, omissions, and fabrications central to heritage reconstruction. (Lowenthal, 1998, pp. 88-104) Heritage producers and stewards, however, seem increasingly concerned to ground their goods and stories in verifiable evidence. As heritage suffuses more and more everyday life, and claims to property and pride hinge on rival versions of the same experienced past, heritage-mongers feel compelled to cloak wares in historical folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos authenticity. Material relics are scrutinized, memories retrieved, archives examined, monuments restored, reenactments performed, and historic sites interpreted with painstaking precision. Heritage apes scholarship with factoids and footnotes to persuade us that our legacy is grounded in irrefutable evidence (Lowenthal, 1998, pp. 249-250).

Turning folklore research into cultural heritage
Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, a former president of the American Folklore Society (1991)(1992), configures folklore as Lowenthal does "Heritage", namely as a social fabrication rather than a reality. Writing before his book appeared in print, she states her conceptual preference for "Heritage" over "folklore". Although she introduces her view of folklore rather innocuously, proposing that "folklore is made not found" (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1995, p. 369). But what appears as a casual comment exposes a radical change in the conception of folklore from a behavioral and cognitive reality to an exhibition in the venues that modern societies make available. She breaks away from the basic tenet upon which it is logically possible to construct a scholarly discipline, transforming research into display. Initially Kirshenblatt-Gimblett herself has balked at her own proposition, qualifying it by stating that it "does not mean that it is fabricated, though fabrication does of course occur" (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1995, p. 369). However, her qualified denial underscores the very quality she is hesitant to attribute to folklore, since fabrication is an either /or action. It is impossible to have just "a little bit" of fabrication. Implicitly she follows Hobsbawm's idea of tradition as an invention (Hobsbawm, 1983a(Hobsbawm, , 1983b, though not explicitly quoting or rephrasing him, but if folklore is made up and fabricated what is it if not an invention? (also Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1988, p. 192). She overlooks the fact1folklore that is exhibited in museums and staged for tourists is not a collective creation of the "folk" but an institutional fabrication of a community for the purposes of self-presentation in public spaces.
The conception of folklore as a fabrication is a break with a century-long endeavor (Bauman, 1969;Burstein, 1957;Dorson, 1973;Dundes, 1966;Edmonson, 1971;Glennie, 1889;Gomme, 1885Gomme, , 1908Hartland, 1891;Krappe, 1930;Limón, 2014;Oring, 2019;Ortutay, 1955;Pound, 1952) to establish folklore as a scholarly discipline in the social sciences and the humanities. Such a proposition was subject to intellectual trends, political ideals, and pressures, research methods in the social sciences and humanities, but its basic tenet has been that folklore is a social reality that exists and functions in social and cultural life following principles that can be discovered. It is a reality that has a history and a presence, both of which require systematic investigation and interpretation and, like language itself, is a universal. The science of folklore is the discipline that investigates the subject of folklore. Such a terminological dualism is part of its history (Burne, 1885). Obviously, the scientific quality of its research merges social and humanistic, rather than biological and physical sciences (Nagel, 1961, pp. 447-546;Ryan, 1970). Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett proposes that a break with this fundamental conception of folklore research is the solution to the folklore crisis. She suggests folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos to take the popular "misperceptions" of folklore as indicative of the truths of heritage as they emerge from contemporary practice. Heritage, for the sake of my argument, is the transvaluation of the obsolete, the mistaken, the outmoded, the dead, and the defunct. Heritage is created through a process of exhibition (as knowledge, as performance, as museum display). Exhibition endows heritage thus conceived with a second life. My argument is built around five propositions: (1) Heritage is a mode of cultural production in the present that has recourse to the past; (2) Heritage is a "value added" industry; (3) Heritage produces the local for export; (4) A hallmark of heritage is the problematic relationship of its objects to its instruments; and (5) A key to heritage is its virtuality, whether in the presence or the absence of actualities. (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1995:369) But the folklore crisis has occurred in the academic not in the popular and public space. Any proposals to resolve it must address its particular qualities, features, and issues as a scholarly discipline. Transferring folklore to popular and public culture of modern literate and urban society, at best would illuminate the particular features that folklore acquires when it is displayed and staged "for export," becoming a subject of modern popular perceptions. These are not "misperceptions" as Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett labels them. Rather they have their own validity in the context in modern literate society that has generated its own means, ideas and institutions to address folklore. Its reconceptualization as "Intangible Cultural Heritage" is certainly one of them. But when heritage begins, tradition ends. The packaging of traditional culture for modern consumers deflates it from the symbolic values that these words and objects have within their own respective communities. Traditional culture, and its tangible and intangible representation, becomes memorabilia and its exhibition has its own poetic principles (Karp and Lavine, eds. 1991). Objects in the museum shop, or even in the museum display cases, do not have the capacity to function as they do in their cultural contexts. There, they have reached the calm water of virtuality. With all the care and thoughtfulness that museum curators exhibit ethnographic and folkloristic objects (Alivizatou, 2012;Karp and Lavine, 1991;La Follette, 2013) and with all the reconstruction of the indigenous cultural, historical, religious background that they create, they cannot override the obvious fact that these objects are in a museum display and not in their indigenous context. No wonder that at the present time the people for whom these museum objects have religious and symbolic significance are indignant, witnessing the use of their cultural symbol as exotic and curious objects (Sleeper-Smith, 2009). Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett often quotes John Comaroff who reportedly said that "folklore, let me tell you, is one of the most dangerous words in the English language" (Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1995, p. 368;1998a, p. 298;1998b, pp. 1,162). At the end of that paragraph from which she quotes, John Comaroff is also quoted as saying, "what museums allow us to do? They allow us to be voyeurs, to look in and not be disturbed and not be vexed by the differences." (Gray and Taylor, 1992). Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, in fact, reaffirms Comaroff's observation, pointing out that "[t]ourism and heritage are collaborative industries, heritage converting locations into destinations and tourism making them economically folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos viable exhibits of themselves. Locations become museums of themselves within a tourism economy" (Kirshnblatt-Gimblett, 1995, p. 371).
Tourism is another form of voyeurism. The voluminous scholarship about tourism 14 concerns primarily with the tourists and their perspectives and issues, considering tourism as a leisure activity that is democratized travel and a mode of pilgrimage that has a dimension of neocolonialism, but nevertheless impact the tourists as an acculturative process that effects their ethnic relations and subjective, or "emic" perspectives (Cohen, 1984, pp. 374-376). While such a one-sided approach may be valid in tourism of nature, archaeology, and architecture, once the tourists' gaze shifts from natural and constructed objects to humans and their cultures, tourism acquires a dual-perspectives of those who gaze and those who are gazed at. The gazing tourists approach their living and material objects with curiosity, fascination, and with empathetic alienation, wondering about the authenticity of the sights they witness, whereas the people at whom they gaze seek to reap economic benefits from exhibiting their lives, essential and unique cultural symbols to strangers, turning them into a commodity (Bowen, 2018;Cleveland and Murray, 1997;Cohen, 1988;Comaroff and Comaroff, 2009;Evans-Pritchard, 1989;Foltz, 2005;Goldstein, 2007;Green, 2007;Markwick, 2001;Nash, 2000;Peach, 2007;Pigliasco, 2010;Shereman, 2008;Zhiqin, 2015.) As a concept, authenticity is a paradox since it is conceived only in its absence. The starting point of "the search of authenticity" is its absence. In the interpretation of Jacob Golomb, Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 considers "authenticity as a negative term. Its presence is discerned in its absence, in the passionate search for it, in inauthenticity and in various acts of "bad faith" (Golomb, 1995, p. 7),that is to say, authenticity becomes relevant when inauthenticity occurs. Cultural authenticity and tourism have been the subject of extensive scholarship, often searching for the authentic in the inauthentic (Bendix, 1997(Bendix, , 2018Cohen, 1988Cohen, , 2007Cohen and Cohen, 2012;Desmond, 1997;Ehrentraut, 1993;Kirshenblatt-Gimblett, 1988;Lindholm, 2008;MacCannell, 1973;Pincus, 1996), the staged performance for tourists is inherently inauthentic or at most it is a staged authenticity (MacCannell, 1973(MacCannell, , 2011Williams, 2006).
Heritage is a foreign country for folklore. 15 In order to obtain citizenship, its hosts, the stagers and the exhibitors transform it from a system of symbols in culture to exhibits of culture, from indigenous performances into staging of indigeneity and from culture into a commodity. Although both folklore and "Intangible Cultural Heritage" are abstract concepts, the idea of their mutual interaction does not involve their reification, rather their mutual relations take place through cultural agents, social institutions, communities, organizations, and social actions, within such venues as tourism, commodification, and legalization.
Surely, commodification of folklore occurs already in traditional cultures. The performance of epics, for example, requires prolonged training, and therefore epic singers receive monetary rewards for their performances. In some societies families or guilds have a monopoly on the performance of such epics as the "Sunjata Epic," and others, and are duly rewarded financially 16 . Weavers, carvers, and bronze casters, as well as other artists, follow similar professional and economic patterns that ensure not only creative but also economic folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no.): 114-Dan Ben-Amos control over their performances and creations (e.g., Abiọdun et al.,1994;d'Azavedo, 1973). But in oral society commodification is performance centered. The local storytellers, singers, and epic reciters receive their monetary reward for their performance and not for their tales or songs which are verbal, visual, or musical substance of their community or family. In the realm of folklore, themes, narrative plots, and heroic patterns circle the globe and transcend linguistic boundaries. Once oral literary forms and specific poems and tales crossed the bridge into the commercial and literate space of modern or modernized societies, by whatever transference agents, the state and large corporations set their eyes on them and sought to turn them into their own possession (Hafstein, 2018, pp. 21-52;Rios, 2014.) Finally, the most drastic uprooting and sterilization of folklore is turning it into an entertainment for "export," as a staged performance of the collective self. In this way a society abdicates its collective social and cultural identity and turns itself into a staged show. There is no way but to conclude that with such a significant degree of separation Intangible Cultural Heritage is not a mate for the discipline of folklore.
I would like to conclude by citing an Irish poet and a Jewish writer who addressed the tourist gaze and the draining of cultural symbols of their significance and turning them into the staging of folklore in modern society, transforming them into Intangible Cultural Heritage long before UNESCO coined the term. I must apologize, because I quoted both of them in one of my previous essays (Ben-Amos, 1981, pp. 9, 15), but I find both of them compellingly insightful addressing the transference of folklore from traditional life into modern society.
The first is the great Irish poet and novelist Patrick Kavanagh (1904Kavanagh ( -1967  And all religions, There is the pool in which the poet dips And the musician. Without the peasant base civilization must die, Unless the clay is in the mouth the singer's singing is useless. The travelers touch the root of the grass and feel renewed When they grasp the steering wheels again. The peasant is the unspoiled child of Prophecy. The peasant is all virtues---let us salute him without irony The peasant ploughman who is half a vegetable ---Who can react to sun and rain and sometimes even Regret that the Maker of Light had not touched him more intensely. (Kavanagh 1942:28-29) "Without irony" Kavanagh claims, but in his poem, irony is abound. In contrast, the Hebrew novelist and 1966 Nobel Laureate, Shmuel Yosef Agnon (1887-1970) addresses the transformation from commitment to a staged performance by bluntly considering folklore as heritage, though at the time he wrote the distinction between the two was not available to him.
In a short story titled "Edo and Enam" originally published in 1951 and appeared in English in his book Two Tales (Agnon, 1951(Agnon, , 1966 there is a dialogue between its main principal characters, both of them are scholars investigating the culture of remote Jewish community, one collects old books, manuscripts, and amulets, and the other records oral traditions. The manuscript collector says: Besides, all these scholars are modern men; even if you were to reveal the properties of the charms, they would only laugh at you; and if they bought them, it would be as specimens of folklore. Ah folklore, folklore! Everything which is not material for scientific research they treat as folklore. Have they not made our holy Torah into either one or the other? People live out their lives according to the Torah, they lay down their lives for the heritage of their fathers; then along come the scientists, and make the Torah into "research material," and the ways of our fathers into---folklore. 18 Writing in 1951 while finding refuge in the apartment of his friend, Gershom Scholem , Agnon anticipated Barbara Kirshenblatt-Gimblett's equation of folklore with heritage as a culture for export with a rejection.

(Endnotes)
1 Professor Dan Ben-Amos delivered this lecture at Interim Conference for Folk Narrative Research on September 1-5-2015 in Ankara as keynote lecturer invited by Hacettepe University Turkish Folklore Department.
2 The article appeared anonymously in the editorial office of the Journal of American Folklore, and the editor at the time, Jan Harold Brunvand, published it with his own initials as a signature. The public identification of the author has been made by John McLeish (1980:136) who notes about this essay: "A satirical "How to write folklore articles?" A guide, originally circulated as a mock chain letter and here printed without any indication of authorship." folklor/edebiyat yıl (year):2023, cilt (vol.): 29, sayı (no For studies about him see : Bullough, 2004;Duckett, 1951;Houwen and MacDonald, 1998. 5 Extensive scholarship about the folklore and vernacular languages in the works of these authors is available.
9 The above paragraph is quoted, with minor editorial changes, from my review of Lee Haring, ed. Grand Theory in Folkloristics (2016), see: Ben-Amos 2018, p. 203.
10 Downloaded from: https://www.herts.ac.uk/courses/ma-folklore-studies 11 One of the other "international organizations" to which Hafstein refers but does not specify is likely the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO which has an "Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore" with which the American Folklore Society maintained official contact. A statement drafted by J. Sanford Rikoon , Burt Feintuch, and Timothy Lloyd and approved by the American Folklore Society Executive Board in December 2002 was presented to WIPO that same month. See: Anon, 2004. 12 Indeed, in response to a conceived condescending attitude to African traditional literature expressed in the term "oral literature", and its inherent contradiction. The Ugandan linguist Pio Zirimu (d.1977) proposed to replace it with his new coinage of "orature." In its context the elements of African orature are myth and legends, tales, enigmas, proverbs, songs, currencies, incantations, epics, maxims, riddles fables, genealogies, lullabies, and sung rhymes. See : Taïwé 2008. 13 I would to thank my friends Stephen Tinney and Grant Frame for directing me to these studies.
* The Bibliography includes a few entries of publications about "Intangible Cultural Heritage" that are not cited in the essay.

Research and Publication Ethics Statement:
This is a research article, containing original data, and it has not been previously published or submitted to any other outlet for publication. The author followed ethical principles and rules during the research process. In the study, informed consent was obtained from the volunteer participants and the privacy of the participants was protected.

Contribution rates of authors to the article:
The author in this article contributed to the 100% level of preparation of the study, data collection, and interpretation of the results and writing of the article.